agaberto said:

---

I love Trump, but people that think millions of illegals didn't get into this country in his term and are now living here are just burring their head in the sand. If Trump was the toughest President we have ever had on illegal immigration, and I think he was, and he could NOT stop the massive flow of illegals with the tools he had, then Congress needs to pass laws to give the President more power.

---

4stringAg said:

---

agaberto said:

---

I love Trump, but people that think millions of illegals didn't get into this country in his term and are now living here are just burring their head in the sand. If Trump was the toughest President we have ever had on illegal immigration, and I think he was, and he could NOT stop the massive flow of illegals with the tools he had, then Congress needs to pass laws to give the President more power.

---

Congress doesn't need to do anything but demand the Executive Branch enforce the existing laws on the books and stop allowing the bending of asylum laws.

---

Then what laws was Trump not using to keep out the ~2,000,000 illegals that settled in the USA during his term? Or do you think this is a problem with the Courts stopping what you believe to be the rightful implementation of law, in which case Congress would be the likely remedy as well.

agaberto said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

agaberto said:

---

I love Trump, but people that think millions of illegals didn't get into this country in his term and are now living here are just burring their head in the sand. If Trump was the toughest President we have ever had on illegal immigration, and I think he was, and he could NOT stop the massive flow of illegals with the tools he had, then Congress needs to pass laws to give the President more power.

---

Congress doesn't need to do anything but demand the Executive Branch enforce the existing laws on the books and stop allowing the bending of asylum laws.

---

Then what laws was Trump not using to keep out the ~2,000,000 illegals that settled in the USA during his term? Or do you think this is a problem with the Courts stopping what you believe to be the rightful implementation of law, in which case Congress would be the likely remedy as well.

---

2,000,000 vs. 10,000,000 + million? Is this the hill you want fight on? Seriously? And you claim to support Trump? I believe you are starting to hemorrhage……

Claverack said:

---

A lot of words to admit the fact the enforcement and security mechanisms remained in the hands of a President who…failed to enforce the border laws at his disposal in the first place.

You don't pass a law codifying Biden's open borders while giving him free rein to block any attempt at enforcing the security/ immigration control provisions. That is meaningless and a waste of time that doesn't address the issue at all for those Americans who have suffered through these Biden-Harris policies on the border since the first week of their tenure.

Biden took executive action…only recently and only after leftists discovered the border was a losing issue for them.

Why did he need a bill to do the job he already had the power to do?

Because he never wanted to enforce border law and wanted his open borders policy codified into law with Republican help.

---

You're asking a good question here.

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.

So, now, Biden is trying to thread the needle by putting more exceptions in his new rules hoping they won't get blocked the same way the Trump rules were. But, the same groups have already promised to challenge the Biden rules and there's a good chance they get blocked just like the Trump rules were.

This is why it would have been cleaner and more reliable to have new legislation in place which gives Biden and future admins authority to act.

Similarly, Biden does have authority under current law to limit/suspend immigration when its detrimental to the US. But, like with any executive order or rule, it's subject to review by the courts and they often apply an "arbitrary and capricious" test. Biden couldn't say, for example, "my neighbor Juan is a jerk, so no more immigration." Lots of Trump actions were shot down with this test. This is why Biden is attaching numbers to say asylum will be halted if illegal crossing exceed X number. He is attempting to demonstrate a well reasoned measure for detrimental impacts so that his action can't be colored as arbitrary. It's one thing for us on a message board to say that immigration clearly is a problem, but it's another thing to demonstrate a reasoned approach in court. The new law could help cutoff a lot of this scrutiny.

Personally, as a fan of limited government, I prefer the conservative approach of limiting action to the laws as written. Trump often took the approach of doing what he wanted and daring/forcing the courts to block it. I'm not a fan. Our system works best when the branches of the government work together.

Another big reason Biden's executive order is not as good as having new legislation is that the bill would have allocated funds, which only Congress can do. We need the money to expand facilities and hire ICE and CBP agents and immigration judges. Any action by Biden (or any future administration) just isn't going to get the job done without this. Even under the Trump administration we know there was an asylum backlog and we didn't have enough judges.

Again, I know not everyone is a fan of the fact spittin' (I'll try to keep it down), but there's a lot of good info here about Biden's executive action, why it's not as good as the legislation and why it's going to be challenged in court: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/06/qa-on-bidens-border-order/

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.


So that is Trump's fault, about the courts? Who sued him again?

nu awlins ag said:

---

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.


So that is Trump's fault, about the courts? Who sued him again?

---

The likely remedy would still be Congress.

agaberto said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.


So that is Trump's fault, about the courts? Who sued him again?

---

The likely remedy would still be Congress.

---

Congress doesn't enforce the laws…..that's the courts. You're playing word salad games. You write Kamala's speeches?

Max Boredom said:

---

Claverack said:

---

A lot of words to admit the fact the enforcement and security mechanisms remained in the hands of a President who…failed to enforce the border laws at his disposal in the first place.

You don't pass a law codifying Biden's open borders while giving him free rein to block any attempt at enforcing the security/ immigration control provisions. That is meaningless and a waste of time that doesn't address the issue at all for those Americans who have suffered through these Biden-Harris policies on the border since the first week of their tenure.

Biden took executive action…only recently and only after leftists discovered the border was a losing issue for them.

Why did he need a bill to do the job he already had the power to do?

Because he never wanted to enforce border law and wanted his open borders policy codified into law with Republican help.

---

You're asking a good question here.

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.

So, now, Biden is trying to thread the needle by putting more exceptions in his new rules hoping they won't get blocked the same way the Trump rules were. But, the same groups have already promised to challenge the Biden rules and there's a good chance they get blocked just like the Trump rules were.

This is why it would have been cleaner and more reliable to have new legislation in place which gives Biden and future admins authority to act.

Similarly, Biden does have authority under current law to limit/suspend immigration when its detrimental to the US. But, like with any executive order or rule, it's subject to review by the courts and they often apply an "arbitrary and capricious" test. Biden couldn't say, for example, "my neighbor Juan is a jerk, so no more immigration." Lots of Trump actions were shot down with this test. This is why Biden is attaching numbers to say asylum will be halted if illegal crossing exceed X number. He is attempting to demonstrate a well reasoned measure for detrimental impacts so that his action can't be colored as arbitrary. It's one thing for us on a message board to say that immigration clearly is a problem, but it's another thing to demonstrate a reasoned approach in court. The new law could help cutoff a lot of this scrutiny.

Personally, as a fan of limited government, I prefer the conservative approach of limiting action to the laws as written. Trump often took the approach of doing what he wanted and daring/forcing the courts to block it. I'm not a fan. Our system works best when the branches of the government work together.

Another big reason Biden's executive order is not as good as having new legislation is that the bill would have allocated funds, which only Congress can do. We need the money to expand facilities and hire ICE and CBP agents and immigration judges. Any action by Biden (or any future administration) just isn't going to get the job done without this. Even under the Trump administration we know there was an asylum backlog and we didn't have enough judges.

Again, I know not everyone is a fan of the fact spittin' (I'll try to keep it down), but there's a lot of good info here about Biden's executive action, why it's not as good as the legislation and why it's going to be challenged in court: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/06/qa-on-bidens-border-order/

---

The "fact" deployed by you exists within your initial post when Senator Lankford admitted the law offered tools the President could either use or not use in relation to the bill.

You have a President who refused to enforce the border laws on the books and an Administration who absolutely abandoned illegal immigration law by releasing illegals into the country. All the while, they were telling us the border was secure.

Now if I am a Senator from Texas, then why would I pass a bill that doesn't give airtight guarantees the man responsible for enforcing immigration law and border security will actually do his job?

The President has wide latitude to enforce immigration law and guarantee border security. From week one of his presidency, Biden chose an open border approach. It wasn't forced on him.

The fact he chooses, based entirely on political considerations, now to use the power he has by statute and Constitutional law tells you he always had it to use.

This bill was an attempt to give legal cover to illegal immigration. Per Lankford, the enforcement mechanisms were a pipe dream under this President and any other liberal White House.

It was a good question.

Just a shame you chose to ignore the fact Biden finally admitted he had the ability to enforce the law.

nu awlins ag said:

---

agaberto said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.


So that is Trump's fault, about the courts? Who sued him again?

---

The likely remedy would still be Congress.

---

Congress doesn't enforce the laws…..that's the courts. You're playing word salad games. You write Kamala's speeches?

---

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. The ACLU sued the Tump admin and they won. The ACLU is also going to sue the Biden admin and they might win. That's not Trump's fault. It is Trump's fault for charging ahead with an immigration enforcement act before having the right laws in place.

Obviously the courts enforce the laws. In this case, the courts held that Trump's action violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. Here is the exact text of the law:

Quote:

---

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum

---

If anyone wants to change that law, the remedy is Congress.

Max Boredom said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

agaberto said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

While there are a lot of different elements here, there's some history that explains some of this. In November 2018, Trump issued a proclamation doing things very similar to what Biden did earlier this year with his own executive action on immigration. For example, Trump's proclamation made anyone not crossing at a port of entry ineligible for asylum. However, the Trump admin was sued to block that rule. A federal district court and then an appeals court halted the Trump rules in 2020.


So that is Trump's fault, about the courts? Who sued him again?

---

The likely remedy would still be Congress.

---

Congress doesn't enforce the laws…..that's the courts. You're playing word salad games. You write Kamala's speeches?

---

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. The ACLU sued the Tump admin and they won. The ACLU is also going to sue the Biden admin and they might win. That's not Trump's fault. It is Trump's fault for charging ahead with an immigration enforcement act before having the right laws in place.

Obviously the courts enforce the laws. In this case, the courts held that Trump's action violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. Here is the exact text of the law:

Quote:

---

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum

---

If anyone wants to change that law, the remedy is Congress.

---

Argument as to whether a new law is actually needed aside, the bill in question in this thread was a terrible bill that fortunately did not get passed.

Furthermore, a new bill needs to simply change the law on applying for asylum and nothing else, right?

Senator Cruz discussed the problems with the legislation:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-votes-against-funding-bill-that-fails-to-secure-the-texas-mexico-border#

Quote:

---

"Joe Biden and Democrat officials did this to our countryexplicitly and deliberately. They can reverse their disastrous policies right now. They have all the authorities they need.

"If new legislation absolutely must happen, there is a straightforward and viable option: H.R. 2. This bill, which I've led in the Senate, is the only serious border legislation that has been considered this Congress, and it contains real solutions for the border crisis such as building the wall, tightening asylum standards, reinstating the Remain-in-Mexico policy, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, and more. It already passed the House and should be passed in the Senate. I proposed an amendment to incorporate the provisions of H.R. 2 into the aid package.

---

H.R. 2 had concrete proposals and immigration controls throughout the proposal, provisions the President could not undo with the stroke of a pen.

The Senate bill was concrete in its proposals allowing illegal immigration to continue.

What was not concrete? The security and enforcement proposals. Those were left to Biden's absolute discretion.

WSJ published an article by Katie Tobin that claims Kamala Harris made progress on the border. President Joe Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris as the border czar, and the results have been unquestionably disastrous. Like most liberals, Katie Tobin is blaming the predecessor former President Donald Trump for the crisis they enabled. Also, Tobin claimed Harris' focus was on the root causes to demonstrate that significant progress has been made.

Kamala Harris Made Progress on the Border Crisis - WSJ

Sources familiar confirmed to Fox News that Harris has not spoken to Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, who became chief last year amid a raging crisis at the border which is now into its third year. Earlier this year, former Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said he had not heard from either Biden or Harris during his tenure as head of the agency. "I've never had one conversation with the president or the vice president for that matter. I was chief of the Border Patrol. I commanded 21,000 people. That's a problem," Ortiz said on "60 Minutes." NewsNation first reported that Harris had not spoken to either chief. Customs and Border Protection and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Harris has not spoken to Border Patrol chief despite ongoing migrant crisis, 'root causes' push (msn.com)

Vice President Harris has failed to address the root causes of illegal immigration after being trusted with the task by President Biden in 2021, according to the former Border Patrol union leader.

"It's very disappointing," Brandon Judd, who recently retired as president of the Border Patrol Union, told Fox News Digital. "We gave her the policies that she needed to implement. She refused to implement those."

Harris failed to combat 'root causes' of illegal immigration, former Border Patrol union chief says (yahoo.com)

Max Boredom said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform.

---

Yeah, right. If this bill had passed, the Democrats would have said, "We've fixed the border so we don't need to do anything more." He's also contradicting himself when he says that they didn't meet at the 50 yard line, but at the 10 yard line. If the bill was so skewed toward enforcement, what would have been left for the "comprehensive immigration reform?"

---

What part of Mark Kelly's comment do people think was a lie? Here's a list of some things in the bill.

• New emergency authority that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to "shut down" the border if there are too many migrants trying to cross.
• Any migrant who tried to cross illegally two or more times during a border emergency would be barred from the U.S. for a year.
• The bill would also end the practice of "catch and release." If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete asylum interviews. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.
• The bill would mandate detaining migrants who try to enter the U.S. outside of official ports of entry, pending any asylum claims. Those who fail would also be removed.
• The bill allocates funding for repatriation flights up to 77 per day.
• The bill also raises the "credible fear" standard during interviews for asylum claims, largely by front-loading consideration of whether migrants have disqualifying criminal histories, whether they lived safely in third countries before trying to cross into the U.S. and whether they could safely relocate within their own countries.
• The bill would add new flexibility for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol to make new hires, seeking to address staffing shortages.
• The package also includes bipartisan sweeteners, including the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which would target, sanction and block the financial assets of people involved in the fentanyl supply chain, from chemical suppliers in China to drug traffickers from Mexico.

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Quote:

---

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised the bill for providing "direct and immediate solutions to the crisis at our southern border." He added that America's sovereignty "is being tested here at home" and that adversaries are watching.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602


To answer your question on "what's left", this bill was focused on securing the border but it didn't address other problems with our immigration policy/system. These are a few of the things that still need to be solved with immigration reform.

• It didn't provide a solution for DREAMERS
• It didn't do anything to crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants
• It didn't do anything to address our dependence on immigrant labor through a work visa program or some other solution

There's a lot more to it: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems

---

Pass all the bills you want. If there is no will for enforcement, no funding for enforcement that makes it to Eagle Pass, and everyone is looking the other way...bills are irrelevant

smucket said:

---

Pass all the bills you want. If there is no will for enforcement, no funding for enforcement that makes it to Eagle Pass, and everyone is looking the other way...bills are irrelevant

---

Pass an immigration bill just to pass it. The Nancy Pelosi School of Legislation.

Biden gets open borders for illegal immigrants passed into statute Immediately and permanently.

And…sometime in the next century…the segments enforcing immigration law and border security are put into place every now and then.

The enforcement legislation existed in a real fashion with House Resolution 2.

The fact H.R. 2 was rejected completely by the Biden demonstrates the lack of sincerity regarding border security and immigration enforcement.

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-senate-border-bill-disaster-border-security

Three Senators and President Biden secretly negotiated a border security bill. The Senate bill is a disaster. If passed, the bill would allow the Biden Administration to again fund "sanctuary" jurisdictions and NGOs that have been facilitating mass illegal immigration, using federal grants provided by the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The bill funds and facilitates more mass illegal immigration. It is a disaster for border security.

Don't get it.
Is the memory of an entire nation and the political campaigns herein that short as to not go back and sound bite dozens of quotes from the left saying immigration and the necessity for control was a manufactured crisis? Including especially KH?

Red Dane said:

---

So you know what a conservative in the Senate took issue with rather than your leadership group that (dirty little secret) thinks illegal immigration is great to overcome birth rate drops in order to keep adding cheaper labor and more customers:

-------------------

Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"
February 5, 2024
Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"

The proposed border deal will not secure our border. Passing it into law would worsen the border crisis. Here's why:


CODIFIES CATCH AND RELEASE: Gives the Secretary of Homeland Security unchecked authority to release an alien into the United States under ineffective "alternatives to detention." The illegals only have to express "credible fear" of persecution or the intent to apply for "protection determination." (SEC. 235B)

ALLOWS UP TO 1.8 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS TO ENTER BEFORE TEMPORARILY CLOSING PARTS OF THE BORDER: The Secretary of Homeland Security is only required to shut down the border if there are 5,000 average illegal crossings over a consecutive seven-day period or 8,500 in a single day. The Secretary may shut down the border if crossings are at 4,000 daily average over a consecutive seven-day period. Even during a border emergency, this bill requires the administration to process a minimum of 1,400 illegal immigrants a day. This is 400 more per day than Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said constituted a crisis in 2019. (SEC. 244B)


LOOPHOLES: Does not count any unaccompanied alien children from non-contiguous countries, suspected trafficking victims, aliens who are determined "exempted" based on decisions by ICE, or aliens who meet screening criteria for asylum. Also allows the reopening of the border once encounters are at 75% of the number that caused the shut down, so if the number was 10,000 per day, it only has to be reduced to 7,500/day to reopen.

LIMITED DURATION: Limits the number of days each year where authority to shut down the border can be in place: 270 days in first calendar year, 225 days in the second year and 180 days in the third year. The period that this "border shutdown" is mandatory decreases in year one, the first 90 days are mandatory; in year two, the first 75 days are mandatory; and in year three, only the first 60 days are mandatory.


PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION: Allows the president to reopen the border any time it is in the "national interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority" for up to 45 days.

FUNDS SANCTUARY CITIES AND NGOs SENDING ILLEGALS AROUND THE COUNTRY: Includes $1.4 BILLION for more FEMA grants to NGOs that provide shelter, transportation, legal advice and other services to illegal aliens and $2.3 BILLION to HHS for Refugee Entrant And Assistance, a slush fund for services to unaccompanied alien children.

SUBSIDIZES FREE, TAXPAYER-FUNDED LEGAL COUNSEL TO ILLEGAL ALIENS: Orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that "all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Homeland Security…have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings" and free legal counsel for any illegal alien who a judge determines is mentally "incompetent." Mandates that the government provide legal counsel for UACs 13 years old and under. (SEC. 3512-3513)

EXPANDS PAROLE INSTEAD OF LIMITING IT: Does nothing to meaningfully limit President Biden's abuse of parole. The language makes a fake exemption that seems to sanction Mayorkas' current abuse of parole. Under this bill, Mayorkas can parole in all these groups with the implicit approval of Congress. It also creates a dangerous EXPANSION of parole by saying it can now be granted for anyone the DHS Secretary determines has an "urgent humanitarian reason" to stay and any "culturally important purpose warranting the alien's presence in the United States on Tribal land located at or near an international land border." (SEC. 3146)

INCREASES GREEN CARDS BY 50,000 PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS: This includes 32,000 family-based green cards and 18,000 employment-based green cards. Hurts American workers by importing cheap foreign labor. (SEC. 3402)

WORK PERMIT FOR ADULT CHILDREN OF H-1B VISA HOLDERS: Hurts American workers by providing indefinite work permits to an estimated 250,000 adult children of H-1B nonimmigrant visa holders who will be competing for jobs with recent college graduates. (SEC. 3403)

IMMEDIATE WORK PERMITS TO EVERY ILLEGAL RELEASED FROM CUSTODY AFTER THEY PASS AN INITIAL SCREENING: Current law requires a 6 months waiting period after filing an asylum claim before you can apply for a work permit. Under this bill, applicants are granted an IMMEDIATE work permit if they pass the initial asylum credible fear screening. (SEC. 235C)

NOTHING TO DEPORT ILLEGALS: Does not require the President or Secretary of Homeland Security to deport anyone.

AFGHAN ADJUSTMENT ACT: Creates a pathway to citizenship for over 60,000 poorly vetted Afghans who were brought to the country due to President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. (SEC. 331)

WEAKENS ASYLUM SCREENING BY CODIFYING BIDEN POLICY: Codifies the Biden asylum officer regulation and empowers USCIS asylum officers to grant asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture without review by an Immigration Judge, ensuring significantly higher approval rates. (SEC. 3141)

NO IMMEDIATE FUNDING FOR THE WALL: The bill claims to give $650 million for "building the border wall." This is a budgeting gimmick without any new money. The bill would simply rescind current money and then put it back in with a later date (FY2028) so that President Biden and Sec. Mayorkas don't have to build any wall and can delay spending money on the border wall. (SEC. 205)
---------------------
I personally would add that it places all court jurisdictions related to the act in Washington DC ONLY. Given how the only courts interested in securing a border are on the border, that alone is a non-starter.

---

What a beat down.

Max? Any response? Would love a point by point support for these provisions.

The border bill gave the DC courts the power to rule on all immigration issues.

Are you seriously saying that this bill would have resulted in more favorable court rulings? When it forced venue to DC? Is that your position?

Something about this thread reminds me the saying "are you going to piss on me and tell me it's raining?"

Talk take these leftist takes too seriously. They don't want any real reform of illegal immigration, their claims of wanting conservative small government solutions aside. It's transparently dishonest. They are Biden and argue 100% in bad faith. You're wasting your time with them.

Max Boredom said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform.

---

Yeah, right. If this bill had passed, the Democrats would have said, "We've fixed the border so we don't need to do anything more." He's also contradicting himself when he says that they didn't meet at the 50 yard line, but at the 10 yard line. If the bill was so skewed toward enforcement, what would have been left for the "comprehensive immigration reform?"

---

What part of Mark Kelly's comment do people think was a lie? Here's a list of some things in the bill.

• New emergency authority that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to "shut down" the border if there are too many migrants trying to cross.
• Any migrant who tried to cross illegally two or more times during a border emergency would be barred from the U.S. for a year.
• The bill would also end the practice of "catch and release." If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete asylum interviews. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.
• The bill would mandate detaining migrants who try to enter the U.S. outside of official ports of entry, pending any asylum claims. Those who fail would also be removed.
• The bill allocates funding for repatriation flights up to 77 per day.
• The bill also raises the "credible fear" standard during interviews for asylum claims, largely by front-loading consideration of whether migrants have disqualifying criminal histories, whether they lived safely in third countries before trying to cross into the U.S. and whether they could safely relocate within their own countries.
• The bill would add new flexibility for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol to make new hires, seeking to address staffing shortages.
• The package also includes bipartisan sweeteners, including the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which would target, sanction and block the financial assets of people involved in the fentanyl supply chain, from chemical suppliers in China to drug traffickers from Mexico.

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Quote:

---

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised the bill for providing "direct and immediate solutions to the crisis at our southern border." He added that America's sovereignty "is being tested here at home" and that adversaries are watching.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602


To answer your question on "what's left", this bill was focused on securing the border but it didn't address other problems with our immigration policy/system. These are a few of the things that still need to be solved with immigration reform.

• It didn't provide a solution for DREAMERS
• It didn't do anything to crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants
• It didn't do anything to address our dependence on immigrant labor through a work visa program or some other solution

There's a lot more to it: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems

---

Glad you were able to cut and paste from this Yahoo article...

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

Y'all can thank the dumbass Republicans that signed off on that GD bill in the senate. The GOP cannot stop being Morons and stepping on their D***s

People Fing whine about Trump. Oh my God he said this and that. Yet Morons see this and say nothing. But Trump hurts the GOP chances? He's a bad candidate, really?

Point your eyes at the old Rino guard of this party. Weak sellouts. They cannot die out fast enough

Max Boredom said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform.

---

Yeah, right. If this bill had passed, the Democrats would have said, "We've fixed the border so we don't need to do anything more." He's also contradicting himself when he says that they didn't meet at the 50 yard line, but at the 10 yard line. If the bill was so skewed toward enforcement, what would have been left for the "comprehensive immigration reform?"

---

What part of Mark Kelly's comment do people think was a lie?

---

The lie was that it would not stop the illegal invasion, it codified it into law. It also did not count many of the illegal aliens brought into this country in the 4,000 daily maximums. It also provided exceptions to enforcement allowing those protections against the invasion to be waived.

You are being

• Lied to and believe the lies
• Or are being disingenuous

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

why did we even need a new bill? Under trump, border security. Under biden, no border security.

Not passing a bill didn't change this. It was working before this proposed bill. It's not working anymore under Biden/Harris.

---

This above all else proves the bill was not only not needed but a complete lie.

Muy said:

---

I wish Alien was on board his ship when he was in space.

---

Xenomorph or small grey?

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

That's horse *****

There were numerous Senators that came out condemning the bill well before Trump ever opened his mouth. The left (and you) are gaslighting the timeline of the bill.

And as to Republicans on the committee that helped write it - I believe there was ONE Republican. It was negotiated between Lankford, Murphy, and Sinema and the White House...so with ONE Republican, it gets mislabeled bipartisan.

Not only that, but HB2 passed the House and Schumer refused to bring it up for a vote...So, the Dems had a chance to vote for a border bill and refused to do it.

Thank you for taking the time to expose the bull**** the Democratic Leadership tried to perpetrate on the American public.

kelly part of the marxist democrat leadership

agaberto said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

agaberto said:

---

I love Trump, but people that think millions of illegals didn't get into this country in his term and are now living here are just burring their head in the sand. If Trump was the toughest President we have ever had on illegal immigration, and I think he was, and he could NOT stop the massive flow of illegals with the tools he had, then Congress needs to pass laws to give the President more power.

---

Congress doesn't need to do anything but demand the Executive Branch enforce the existing laws on the books and stop allowing the bending of asylum laws.

---

Then what laws was Trump not using to keep out the ~2,000,000 illegals that settled in the USA during his term? Or do you think this is a problem with the Courts stopping what you believe to be the rightful implementation of law, in which case Congress would be the likely remedy as well.

---

Congress fought him at every step. The numbers kept falling as he implemented policies.
There was a surge that faltered, especially after COVID requirements, then all hell broke loose when President Biden reversed all President Trumps initiatives.
STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ON TRACK TO REACH 10 MILLION ENCOUNTERS NATIONWIDE BEFORE END OF FISCAL YEAR

Kelley is just the latest Arizona version of John McCain, with strings attached. Does more harm than good and lies about it when confronted.

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

It was not going to pass ever. The *censored* Senator Lankford was involved. He is another arrogantly stupid RINO cut from the same cloth as Romney, Cornyn, among others. The bill was full of land mines that effectively left the border open with illegal alien flow allowed at the discretion of the President. Also, funded graft for the marxist NGOs, and more agents for processing not enforcement.

BusterAg said:

---

Something about this thread reminds me the saying "are you going to piss on me and tell me it's raining?"

---

No *****

A whole lot of prevarication by a few water-carriers. The bottom line is that the executive branch knew there was a huge problem at the southern border and willfully didn't do crap about it.